Ok... legal or illegal?

[goodlookin1]

Honestly, I dont know how LEO would look at it if you were using a non weapons-mounted illuminator while concurrently using a weapons-mounted passive IR scope with magnification.

Quiet's post seems to suggest that using an IR illuminator with a magnified passive device is a no-no. Essentially, using an IR illuminator turns a Passive device into an Active device. He (Quiet) does not appear to make a distinction between weapons mounted or not, but rather used in conjunction in any configuration.

YMMV, but I wouldnt risk it.

[krwada]

arrgh!

Honestly, I dont know how LEO would look at it if you were using a non weapons-mounted illuminator while concurrently using a weapons-mounted passive IR scope with magnification.

Quiet's post seems to suggest that using an IR illuminator with a magnified passive device is a no-no. Essentially, using an IR illuminator turns a Passive device into an Active device. He (Quiet) does not appear to make a distinction between weapons mounted or not, but rather used in conjunction in any configuration.

YMMV, but I wouldnt risk it.

California gun laws make my head hurt!

[goodlookin1]

California gun laws make my head hurt!

Yeah, I;ve had a constant headache now for 5 1/2 years (Calguns join date = Apr 2009)

[Merc1138]

Yes ... it appears that IF the infrared light source is in anyway attached to the firearm ... then it is illegal. Otherwise ... an infrared light source as a separate not-attached to the firearm ... then that looks like it is legal?

At least ... this is what it looks like with the re-post.

Honestly, I dont know how LEO would look at it if you were using a non weapons-mounted illuminator while concurrently using a weapons-mounted passive IR scope with magnification.

Quiet's post seems to suggest that using an IR illuminator with a magnified passive device is a no-no. Essentially, using an IR illuminator turns a Passive device into an Active device. He (Quiet) does not appear to make a distinction between weapons mounted or not, but rather used in conjunction in any configuration.

YMMV, but I wouldnt risk it.

If it's not attached, then it isn't a "sniper scope" per stupid CA law. I don't see how the PC is confusing, when it specifically states

"sniperscope means any attachment, device or similar contrivance designed for or adaptable to use on a firearm"

Now the "adaptable" part can cause a problem, since for example an NV monocular like one sold at Big 5 with an IR illuminator, that happens to have a place in the bottom to add a pic rail mount would pretty easily be considered "adaptable", but at the same time a roll of duct tape could make something "adaptable". That's the point in which you have to decide for yourself how much of a stretch it is(would a DA or even court really consider it adaptable just because you had a roll of tape in your bag, compared to a device that has a specific mount available), and whether or not it's worth even considering. But if you're talking about two items that are clearly not attached to eachother or the rifle simultaneously, shouldn't be a problem.

HOWEVER, the other consideration is "what is projected infrared light" and the PC does not specify that. If you have a flashlight that has an IR mode, that's simple. If you have a cheap green laser pointer using a double pumped laser diode and no IR filter... if the DA is being a douche and understands electronics you're going to find yourself in court(cheap green lasers tend to rely on double pumped IR laser diodes, and the cheapest bleed IR all over the place, which would mean projecting IR light).

[71MUSTY]

Oh that's a sniperscope! I thought it was something that fell off Predator.